Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Algore And Reuters Team Up
As I've mentioned before, I think Algore is an absolute nut...but at least he provides some entertainment from time to time. Fortunately, just when I had started to really miss him, he's back at it. This time in Georgetown prattling on and on about various lines of BS (complete text via Drudge). His claim this time? He says the...
For the love God! That last link is an indictment against Osama himself from the Clinton Administration that states:
Get the point? Tired of my copious linking? When will people start to see the truth? How much evidence can people be convinced to overlook?
---
Update:
The NYT is running a story about Iraq contacting bin Laden. No connection, huh? (hat tip Powerline)
---
It's almost enough to make you want to throw up my truth-seeking hands and stop blogging. Almost...but then a little paragraph (probably overlooked by nearly everyone) pops up that makes me want to hang around and keep up the fight:
Second, the snide little remark:
Footnotes
*Actually, it is a well proven fact that there are no 'slow' readers of MuD&PHuD. However, if a regular reader happened to point someone in this direction, you never know.
Update:
More of the Liberal lies about the nature of the 2000 election decision by the Supreme Court.
|
...recent report by the Sept. 11 commission saying no credible evidence existed of a link between the Iraqi leader and bin Laden.Really? That's interesting because I'm pretty sure that the 9/11 Commission's report said that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida...
“do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"What does that mean to you? I'd say (and I'm not alone) that this statement says more about what it does not address that by what it does. For anyone a little slow in the audience* these two statements do not rule out communication between al-Qaida and Saddam nor are they mutally exclusive with a mutual understanding between these very bad people (see next quote).
[and]
“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
For the love God! That last link is an indictment against Osama himself from the Clinton Administration that states:
4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq. (emphasis mine)So which is it boys, girls and Algores? Connection or no connection? Link or no link? Collaborative relationship or no collaborative relationship?
Get the point? Tired of my copious linking? When will people start to see the truth? How much evidence can people be convinced to overlook?
---
Update:
The NYT is running a story about Iraq contacting bin Laden. No connection, huh? (hat tip Powerline)
---
It's almost enough to make you want to throw up my truth-seeking hands and stop blogging. Almost...but then a little paragraph (probably overlooked by nearly everyone) pops up that makes me want to hang around and keep up the fight:
Gore, a Democrat who lost to Bush in a White House race ultimately decided by the Supreme Court...There are two points in this short little excerpt that make me crazy. First, I guess I hadn't realized that that the 2000 election was "ultimately decided by the Supreme Court". What actually happened was that the US Supreme Court decided that the Florida Supreme Court was not following election laws by allowing endless recounts (which would have stopped as soon as they found a result they liked).
Second, the snide little remark:
despite winning the popular votereally gets under my skin. Have these people ever heard of the Electoral College?! Hum? Check out the Constitution, it's all right there. I happen to disagree with the EC in the strongest terms, but the rules are the rules (unless you're a Democrat and you really, really want to win).
Footnotes
*Actually, it is a well proven fact that there are no 'slow' readers of MuD&PHuD. However, if a regular reader happened to point someone in this direction, you never know.
Update:
More of the Liberal lies about the nature of the 2000 election decision by the Supreme Court.
|
